1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of dental floss which is a thread used to clean between teeth. More particularly, the present invention relates to the field of dental flossing apparatus which are designed to hold a length of dental floss in a given manner such that it can be used to clean the interstices between adjacent teeth.
2. Description of the Prior Art
In most conventional practice, an individual using dental floss to clean the interstices between the user's teeth unwraps a length of dental floss from its container and wraps one end of the floss around a finger of one hand and wraps the opposite end of the floss around a finger of the other hand and thereafter holds the length of floss taut between the two fingers so that it can be inserted between two adjacent teeth and moved back and forth to clean the area. One problem with this method is that a large amount of floss is used. Second, it is sometimes difficult to reach back areas of the mouth when holding the length of floss in this manner.
In some instances, attempts have been made to provide devices for holding the length of floss, which usually takes the form of a yoke across which a portion of the floss is trained while the opposite ends are wrapped about the projecting legs of the yoke. The entire apparatus is then placed in the user's mouth while the fingers manipulate the device between the teeth for cleansing. Several prior art patents disclose variations on this concept. They are as follows:
1. U.S. Pat. No. 3,927,686 issued in 1975 to Zambito for "Dental Floss Holder".
2. U.S. Pat. No. 3,631,869 issued in 1972 to Espinosa for "Dental Floss Holder".
3. U.S. Pat. No. 3,847,168 issued in 1974 to Schlegel for "Tooth Cleaning Appliance".
4. U.S. Pat. No. 2,837,098 issued in 1958 to Sorboro for "Dental Floss Holder And Dispenser".
5. U.S. Pat. No. 1,480,101 issued in 1924 to Ogden for "Dental Floss Appliance".
6. U.S. Pat. No. 2,187,899 issued in 1940 to Henne for "Dental Floss Throw-Away Unit".
7. U.S. Pat. No. 1,346,125 issued in 1982 to Hasbrook for "Sanitary Teeth Cleaner".
8. U.S. Pat. No. 4,319,595 issued in 1982 to Ulrich for "Dental Care Unit".
The apparatus disclosed in Zambito has several disadvantages. Besides being expensive to manufacture, the method of attaching the head holding the floss to the handle cannot provide a firm and secure grip on the head. As a result, when used with vigorous action as is common when flossing, it is possible for the head to come loose and fall into the user's throat and cause the user to choke. In addition, the device does not provide a universal choice of positioning the head orientation and therefore certain parts of the mouth such as the back teeth may be difficult to reach and clean with this device. Further, Zambito does not provide a choice of flossing means and it is also vitally important to prevent sagging of the floss itself.
The apparatus disclosed in Espinosa also has several problems. Not enough tension can possibly be applied to the floss by this method. During flossing, the floss would sag and make the floss device useless. As with the device in Zambito, the device does not provide a universal choice of positioning the head orientation and therefore certain parts of the mouth such as the back teeth may be difficult to reach and clean with this device. In addition, this device with its many grooves, channels, indentations and other slot attachments is an expensive device to manufacture.
The apparatus disclosed in Schlegel is also an expensive and cumbersome device to manufacture and further has a complicated way for retaining the floss. The floss can easily become loose and sag making it worthless for flossing. In addition, the yoke has only one orientation, making it difficult to reach certain parts of the mouth.
The apparatus disclosed in Sorboro, Ogden, Henne, and Hasbrook also have many of the disadvantages previously discussed. The yoke holding the floss is once again in a fixed orientation making it difficult to reach certain parts of the mouth. The complicated structure is also expensive to manufacture.
The apparatus in Ulrich is a dental water pik.
Overall, the prior art embodiments of yoke apparatus which retain a length of dental floss all have in common one or more of the following defects. First, the yoke is oriented in a fixed position and cannot be adjusted to accommodate difficult locations in the mouth. Second, the device is complicated and expensive to manufacture. Third, the floss itself is not held securely and can easily sag and come loose during use, thereby making it worthless. Therefore, there is a significant need for a flossing apparatus which overcomes these defects.